4 ms·

It's not about everyone being above average. it's about as few people as possible falling through the cracks because they lost their job. Or in recent cases for

It's not about everyone being above average. it's about as few people as possible falling through the cracks because they lost their job. Or in recent cases for the youth, are unable to even get a leg in the door of the job market. Sadly, we have more than a few people ignorant or outright apathetic towards systematic issues and act like not being rich is a personal failing.

SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
I'm responding to a comment that was quite explicitly about everyone being above average. The commenter listed out a number of average costs to illustrate that they're not affordable to employed households pulling in less than the average. I think it's important to ensure everyone enjoys a decent quality of life, and I'm sure the apathy you're describing exists, but what's much more common in my experience is frustration with the mathematical invariant that 50% of households can't afford a 50th percentile lifestyle.
- johnnyanmac 1mo ago
  >what's much more common in my experience is frustration with the mathematical invariant that 50% of households can't afford a 50th percentile lifestyle. Are we calling "shelter and 2 kids" a "50th percentile lifestyle" now? Is half the country now destined to either not raise family or raise a family on substandard conditions (putting a huge systematic burden on a child's upbringing)? If such basic goals set by biology a million years ago cannot be obtained, we aren't truly a society anymore. And probably won't be for long.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
    Again, it depends entirely on what you mean by "substandard". It's entirely reasonable to demand specific standards - "children should have healthy food", "children should have health insurance coverage", etc. The median American child gets these things, with 81% of American children satisfying even the strictest standards of food security and 94% having health insurance. Getting these numbers closer to 100% is a laudable goal, and I've never encountered an effort to do so that I didn't support. Perhaps there's some other standard that isn't commonly tracked but should be! If you mean "comparatively substandard", again, you have an unresolvable argument with mathematics. No system can possibly arrange things so that 80% or even 60% of American households have a 50th percentile standard of living.

SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago

I'm responding to a comment that was quite explicitly about everyone being above average. The commenter listed out a number of average costs to illustrate that they're not affordable to employed households pulling in less than the average. I think it's important to ensure everyone enjoys a decent quality of life, and I'm sure the apathy you're describing exists, but what's much more common in my experience is frustration with the mathematical invariant that 50% of households can't afford a 50th percentile lifestyle.

johnnyanmac 1mo ago
>what's much more common in my experience is frustration with the mathematical invariant that 50% of households can't afford a 50th percentile lifestyle. Are we calling "shelter and 2 kids" a "50th percentile lifestyle" now? Is half the country now destined to either not raise family or raise a family on substandard conditions (putting a huge systematic burden on a child's upbringing)? If such basic goals set by biology a million years ago cannot be obtained, we aren't truly a society anymore. And probably won't be for long.
- SpicyLemonZest 1mo ago
  Again, it depends entirely on what you mean by "substandard". It's entirely reasonable to demand specific standards - "children should have healthy food", "children should have health insurance coverage", etc. The median American child gets these things, with 81% of American children satisfying even the strictest standards of food security and 94% having health insurance. Getting these numbers closer to 100% is a laudable goal, and I've never encountered an effort to do so that I didn't support. Perhaps there's some other standard that isn't commonly tracked but should be! If you mean "comparatively substandard", again, you have an unresolvable argument with mathematics. No system can possibly arrange things so that 80% or even 60% of American households have a 50th percentile standard of living.